At 09:24 11/4/01 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >Tim Vernum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I've had to make the same edit to my version of ftp; I could add >>> the ignore521errors as a option too. >> >> Would it not be cleaner to add something like: >> >> ignoreerrors="550,520,521" > >+1 > >BTW, I remember the patch to ignore 521 and found the RFC didn't allow >a 521 to be sent in that context - actually there is no error code 521 >in the FTP protocol. > >Still curious, which ftp daemon is it, that is violating the RFC? OK, >the RFC isn't clear and has a bug itself when it comes to that error >code.
The RFC is just that a *recomendation*. It is more practical when writing clients to just examine the first digit and apply rules for that as almost all daemons will use that appropriately. I can't remember the exact RFC that specs it but from memory it was something like 1 - partial command completion (or was this 2?) 2 - ready (or was this 1?) 3 - success 4 - transient error 5 - Permanent error Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
